Welcome and congrats on the R9. Too bad you had an issue. Mine has been perfect.
I suspect the reason for any issues has to do with the real cost of testing.
I am hoping that the issues we are hearing about, few that they may be, are not able to be seen VISUALLY.
If an issue could have been caught by mere inspection, there is NO excuse for shipping the firearm. However, if the issue can only be identified with testing, then more testing is in order. And testing is expensive. Finding the right balance is part of the art (balancing act) of manufacturing.
Seems that for the money, and given the risk of releasing arms that are flawed (reputation), seems that R can achieve that magical balance.
Given the time spent and cost of repairs to flawed arms, that expense would be better spent in a more intense inspection and testing regimen...
Personally, if it takes 4 (or however many) mags of test firing to expose 99% of the initial operational issues, then that is a well-justified expense. If it takes another 10 minutes per arm to visually inspect, then why could that not be done??
It disappoints me every time there is an initial quality issue. I consider them avoidable and inexcusable.
Still love my R9...
